2011 NUCJ 11, 2011 NUCJ 11

nunavuumi iqkaqtuijikkut NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE La Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: Nunavut (Child and Family Services) v. M.S., 2011 NUCJ 11 Date: 20110627 Docket: 14-08-319-CHW Registry: Iqaluit Plaintiff: Nunavut (Director, Child and Family Services) -and- Defendant: M.S. and D.K. ________________________________________________________________________ Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice P.M.

Clark Counsel (Plaintiff): Michael Chandler Counsel (Defendant): Ken Kinnear Location Heard: Arviat, Nunavut Date Heard: February 02, 2011 Matters: Child and Family Services Act, S.N.W.T 1998 c.34, as amended for Nunavut by s.76.05 of the Nunavut Act, S.C. 1993, c. 28, ss. 2 (l). REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

[ 1 ] The four children of M.S. and D.K. that are the subject of this application [the Children] have been wards of the Nunavut Department of Child and Social Services [the Department] since approximately 2004. [ 2 ] The Department has brought this matter before the Court seeking a permanent guardianship order with respect to the Children under its care. [ 3 ] The Children are the natural children of M.S. and D.K. [ 4 ] M.S. is a long-time resident of the Hamlet of Arviat and has given birth to 15 children by 10 different fathers. D.K. is the father of M.S.’s five youngest children.

Four of these children are the subject of this application. [ 5 ] The Department has had a long history of involvement with the family of M.S. The Children came into the care of the Department in approximately May of 2004.

At that time, M.S. entered into a voluntary support agreement pursuant to which the Children were first placed into foster care. [ 6 ] The voluntary support agreement has been renewed from time to time but there have always been continuing concerns with respect to the care of the Children during those periods when they have been permitted to co-habit with M.S. [ 7 ] In 2005, D.K., the father of the Children, attended at the Department offices and raised concerns that when the Children were with their mother they were not eating properly, showing signs of malnutrition, and were not attending school on a regular basis.

The Department eventually stepped in and suggested that the Children be placed in a foster home. M.S. agreed with that arrangement. [ 8 ] The Children were placed in a foster home where they have been residing for a considerable period of time. Under the arrangement, the Children meet with their mother on a regular basis if they wish to do so.

There have been several attempts to assist the mother to permit her to re-assume responsibility for her children, but it has become increasingly clear that M.S. is not capable of providing proper care and attention to her children. [ 9 ] The Department now applies to this Court for a permanent guardianship order to give them effective and continuing authority to act in the best interests of the Children. [ 10 ] The Department takes the position that they have attempted over a long period of time to help M.S. acquire and develop the necessary skills to parent her children. [ 11 ] These efforts have not been successful and the Department has concluded that M.S. is incapable of ever being able to re-assume responsibility for her children.

She continues to struggle with an alcohol dependency and is unable to accept the fact that she is responsible for her own circumstances, let alone those of her children. [ 12 ] Counsel for M.S. acknowledges that there have been problems, but suggests that the Department has failed in its obligations to M.S. and the Children. Counsel takes the position that the Department has a dual responsibility – primarily to ensure that the Children are receiving proper care and attention, but also that this be done in a manner which results in the least disruption to the family.

He argues that the Department should promote the reunification of the Children with their mother and with her extended family. 13] Relying on the governing legislation, M.S.’s lawyer takes the position that the Children “should be supported within the context of their family and the extended family to the greatest extent possible by the Director [of the Department] providing services or assisting others in providing services on a voluntary basis to support and assist the family” (Child and Family Services Act, S.N.W.T 1998 c.34, as amended for Nunavut by s.76.05 of the Nunavut Act, S.C. 1993, c. 28, ss. 2 (l)).

It is in this respect that Counsel takes the position that the Department has not met its obligation to either M.S. or the Children.

[14] I have had the advantage of hearing from several witnesses in support of the Department’s position. Maryanne Uluadluak is a social worker who has been involved with the family for in excess of 15 years. Ms. Susie Muckpah is the vice-principal of the school attended by the Children. Rosie Gibbons is the foster parent who has assumed responsibility for the Children and with whom the Children currently reside.

The evidence of these witnesses confirm that the Children are happy, in good health, attend school on a regular basis, see their mother when they choose to do so, and are generally thriving under the foster care arrangement. [15] M.S. chose to testify before the Court. Her testimony provides insight into her circumstances. [16] M.S. was born in Whale Cove on July 13, 1965. She was 45 years of age at the time of the application. [17] M.S. was very small when she was born. She was sent down to Winnipeg, Manitoba, to receive proper medical care and attention. Whilst in Winnipeg, she was put into foster care.

She resided in Manitoba until she was five or six years of age, when she was returned to her home in Arviat where she resided with her parents, four brothers, and five sisters. She relates that her family relied on income support, or social assistance as it was called at the time. [18] M.S. relates that she was subjected to sexual abuse as she was growing up. The abuse was not at the hands of family members, but rather from people who might be described as her brothers-in-law, the spouses of her sisters.

The abuse commenced at age 13 or 14, but was discontinued when she was approximately 15 years of age. [19] M.S. attended school up to grade eight, but had to discontinue her schooling when she became pregnant with her first child. [20] M.S. has had 15 children. She gave birth to triplets who died at birth. Several of the children were adopted out at birth or were moved out into foster care situations. M.S. has never married. Ten of her children are from ten different fathers with whom she either never resided or only lived for short periods of time. D.K. is the father of M.S.’s remaining five children.

The eldest of them resides in Rankin Inlet with his adoptive parents and the remaining children are the Children who are the subject of this application. [21] M.S. advises that she does not have extensive work experience. She reports that she looks for any kind of employment, but mainly tries to find work cleaning and babysitting. She resides in a rented home – House 321 – in Arviat. She shares the house with her sister Elizabeth who has six children of her own and three adopted children.

The evidence regarding which and how many children are living in the home is somewhat confusing, but it is my impression that at any given time there might be as many as 17 people residing in the home. M.S. reports that the home has three bedrooms and five beds. This admission notwithstanding, she has assured the Court that the Children have their own bedrooms in her home. [22] One of the primary concerns giving rise to the temporary wardship was that the Children were not being properly fed and were exhibiting signs of undernourishment.

M.S. testified with respect to this issue and advised that she receives financial assistance to purchase food for her children, but that the other people residing in the home are eating the food to the exclusion of the Children. From time to time, M.S. was able to get country food, such as caribou and fish, and was a regular patron at the food bank when the food bank was available.

In her own words, she stated: I tried to maintain, I tried to keep having food on the table or available somewhere in the house, but I have many relatives too, not strictly my immediate children in the house, but relatives who come to me to retrieve some food, some edible things that I have in the house with me but I did try to feed my children. [23] When specifically asked whether it was the case that her relatives would make physical threats or verbal threats forcing her to give up food that should have gone to the Children, she reluctantly agreed that that was in fact the situation that she has to deal with. [24] M.S. has a long history of alcohol abuse.

While she professes that she no longer drinks, I have found that suggestion to be very difficult to accept on the basis of the evidence before the Court. M.S. seems to be of the view that her drinking has nothing or very little to do with her. She drinks when someone else tells her to drink. She knows she is not supposed to drink but she drinks anyway. Asked why she drinks, her reasoning seems to be that other people make her drink.

[25] The Department has gone to extraordinary lengths to assist M.S. in taking care of her children.

In addition to the voluntary care arrangement, the Department at one point decided that M.S. might benefit from a course that was offered in Churchill, Manitoba; a course that might give her some insight into her conduct and the problems she would have to deal with as a parent, and that might encourage her to learn and to develop practices that would allow her to regain custody of the Children. [26] M.S. went to Churchill, but it is clear from her evidence that she did not understand why she was in Churchill or what was involved in the course.

She was under strict conditions not to consume alcohol whilst she was at the course. Shortly after she arrived in Churchill, she formed a liaison with a friend with whom she consumed alcohol and, on one occasion, drank to the extent that she was unable to find her way home and spent the night sleeping outside. [27] This episode resulted in M.S. being dismissed as a participant in the course.

The Department was and is clearly of the opinion that an attempt to repeat the course would be without fruition. [28] I am satisfied that the Department has made extraordinary efforts over the years to assist M.S. in parenting her children. The Children are known to the community and health workers, all of whom have had long-time firsthand experience with M.S.’s inability to cope as a parent. In the words of Ms.

Maryanne Uluadluak, “[M.S.] does not have the ability to properly care for her children and not able to budget properly, and I believe that her extended family often takes advantage of her and she is afraid to stand up for herself to say no when she needs to.” [29] I am satisfied from the evidence that I have heard that M.S. is not what might be described as a bad mother in the sense that she intentionally harms her children. It is, however, abundantly clear that she lacks the capacity to properly care for the Children.

It is clear and unequivocal that it is in the best interests of the Children to be made permanent wards of the Department and an order will issue to that effect. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta, this 27th day of June, 2011 ___________________ Justice P.M. Clark Nunavut Court of Justice